October 29, 2010

Liam Fox tries to shoot the messenger

I thought The Defence Secretary Liam Fox had enough on his plate. The Afghan war is going badly with a shadow Taliban Government in all but one the country’s provinces. This year has been a record one for Taliban attacks and British deaths. He has the tasks of arranging the withdrawal of British fighting troops by 2015 and then spinning it as a victory.

Already the UK has withdrawn from Sangin after 100 deaths. That was spun as a clever strategy - retreat was advance, failure was success, withdrawal was invasion, and truth was lies.

Regular readers of this blog will know that he has refused to say how many deserters there have been from the Afghan Police and Army on which the hopes for an orderly withdrawal depend.

On the 20th of this month I tabled 22 questions of alleged bad behaviour by British troops, asking whether they have been investigated On the 27th the Guardian printed a similar list of allegations published by Wikileaks. In spite of his busy life Liam wrote to me and asked me to clarify my comment that if the allegations are true " there could have been been atrocities committed in the name of the British people.” He is obviously rattled and out to shoot the messenger. I replied to him:

Dear Liam,

I have received your letter of the 27th October. The allegation you make against me is preposterous.

I will be happy to compare my tributes to our soldiers to those paid by any other backbencher. I am the only backbencher who has annually listed the names of the fallen in Iraq and Afghanistan in a series of EDMs. I am also the only MP who has read out the full list of the names of the fallen in the Chamber and Westminster Hall. Each list is accompanied by a tribute to the heroism and valour of the soldiers. House authorities no longer allow the lists to be read.

I was also the only MP who objected, by Point of Order and EDM, to the weekly reading of the names of the fallen being moved from the Wednesday PMQs to a Monday and a Tuesday. There was widespread support from other members who insisted that the names continue to be read at the time of maximum attention by the public and maximum attendance by the MPs.

In the many questions and EDMs on Afghanistan I have always included a sentence praising the heroism of the troops. I was also the only MP who spoke in the Commons in the spring of 2006 against the deployment of British Troops in Helmand. Then two British soldiers had been killed in action, mainly as a result of the Helmand incursion it is now 341.

The questions I tabled on the allegations of possible bad behaviour were e-tabled by me of the 20th of October. They seek details on whether the allegations have been investigated. This is an entirely valid point. If we are to succeed in Afghanistan we must establish our moral superiority.

If allegations are made from reliable sources they should be investigated. Never have I said, hinted or insinuated that the allegations are true. All of my answers to the journalist’s questions included the words ‘if’ the allegations are true. The word ‘could’ is in the quotation you have sent me. My questions are simply seeking to unearth the truth.

That is what my job is as a backbench MP. I am surprised that you judge your job to include making baseless accusations against fellow members.

'This former US State Department advisor wants the messenger (Julian Assange) declared an enemy combatant, so he can be subjected to non-judical actions... like waterboarding and extraordinary rendition, presumably.'

Glenn Greenwald has been examining the American media reaction to Assange and Wikileaks. An article in the Chicago Tribune titled "Why is Assange still alive?" asked the question:

This designating people as 'enemy combatants' is one of the reasons why all these accounts are coming out in the first place. Washington militarists lead and Britain follows, lending them support to abuse the Geneva Convention protocols.

It seems our own governemnt shares this willfully ignorant mentality judging by the lack of a proper response to Pauls' questions.

'The Afghan war is going badly with a shadow Taliban Government in all but one the country’s provinces.'

There is a question as to whether the ISAF alliance can hold together amidst the lack of progress and clear direction. Canada is set to withdraw next year, others are considering it too. Obama pledged to start reducing American troop numbers next year. Blind optimism will not change the trend of this war in NATO’s favour.

It is better to withdraw sooner than to drag out a pointless war just for the sake of it. In terms of defending against the threat of terrorism it makes little sense. We have dedicated people with the expertise to ensure the country is as safe as possible. This doesn’t require large scale occupation of foreign lands. The militarist ‘smoke ‘em out’ mentality is counter-productive. The results for many innocent people are death, imprisonment and abuse. It is creating enemies, and fuelling terrorism. Is this were our truest interest lies?

This former US State Department advisor wants the messenger (Julian Assange) declared an enemy combatant, so he can be subjected to non-judical actions... like waterboarding and extraordinary rendition, presumably.